SUV Protest

In rec.bicycles.misc Mark Hickey said:

Claire Petersky said:

How do you feel about people who damage everyone's (vs. "another person's)
property? After all, we all have a common share in the air we breathe. There
are lots of people who damage it every day. Do you believe that, because it
belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one? How do we go about dealing with
those who would damage, deface, or disable something that we all have a
share in?

I'm wondering how you're managing to post on the 'net without using
electricity.

No telecybernetic powers necessary, Seattle is 91% hydro and wind power.
Additionally IIRC, one has the option of only buying 'green' energy,
which Claire might or might not subscribe to.

http://www.seattle.gov/light/aboutus/customerguide/#PowSup

Fuel Mix for Year 2003

Generation Type Percentage
Hydro 89.29%
Natural Gas 5.00%
Nuclear 2.99%
Wind 1.78%
Coal 0.74%
Other 0.2%

--
Dane Buson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"Ah well, back to the cutting edge on the coal-face of e-commerce."
-- Charlie Stross

Zoot Katz said:

<[email hidden]>, Mark Hickey

Quoted message said:

Claire Petersky said:

How do you feel about people who damage everyone's (vs. "another person's)
property? After all, we all have a common share in the air we breathe. There
are lots of people who damage it every day. Do you believe that, because it
belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one? How do we go about dealing with
those who would damage, deface, or disable something that we all have a
share in?

I'm wondering how you're managing to post on the 'net without using
electricity.

Pedal power can easily maintain a notebook battery.

Not all electricity generation spews green house gasses - hydro, wind
and solar for instance. There are people online who do live off the
grid, ya know.

I know, but it's *almost* virtually impossible to not live in a way
that causes pollution. So it's not a matter of whether you do or not
- it's simply a matter of how much (which was my point).

I agree we should all do "as little damage as possible", but let's not
delude ourselves into thinking that we're not part of the problem too.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Claire Petersky said:

How do you feel about people who damage everyone's (vs. "another person's)
property? After all, we all have a common share in the air we breathe.
There
are lots of people who damage it every day. Do you believe that, because
it
belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one? How do we go about dealing with
those who would damage, deface, or disable something that we all have a
share in?

I'm wondering how you're managing to post on the 'net without using
electricity.

Dear Mr. Hickey:

I was calling into question the poster's message of absolute condemnation of
someone who would damage other people's property. Quite often people who are
absolutists in the area of private property do not consider public goods to
belong to anyone, and therefore can be damaged and destroyed
indiscriminately. The reality is, as other posters pointed out, private
property rights are not absolute. And it'd be nice if there were a greater
recognition of the value of public property in our society.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Mark Hickey said:

I know, but it's *almost* virtually impossible to not live in a way
that causes pollution. So it's not a matter of whether you do or not
- it's simply a matter of how much (which was my point).

I agree we should all do "as little damage as possible", but let's not
delude ourselves into thinking that we're not part of the problem too.

It's ludicrous to complain about someone using the internet to complain
about SUVs. Not all offenses are equal.

ISTR that someone made a famous comment on that over 2000 years ago:

"But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother,
but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?"

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying this anti-SUV prank is such a cause. But we need to be

careful about dealing in absolutes.

OK, but we also have to be careful about nit-picking a comment which
when taken in context is pretty reasonable. The absolute interpretation
was yours and to my mind not consistent with the context in which the
statement was made.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

I know, but it's *almost* virtually impossible to not live in a way
that causes pollution. So it's not a matter of whether you do or not
- it's simply a matter of how much (which was my point).

I agree we should all do "as little damage as possible", but let's not
delude ourselves into thinking that we're not part of the problem too.

It's ludicrous to complain about someone using the internet to complain
about SUVs. Not all offenses are equal.

ISTR that someone made a famous comment on that over 2000 years ago:

"But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother,
but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?"

Well, Frank, the key here is that you may not have noticed, but there
has been considerable complaint about the motes of one's brothers here,
but very little attention to personal beams.

I'd rather not talk about the evil that are SUVs, because I am
suspicious that their recent pariah status has more to do with the
visceral impression they make than their actual contribution to human
sorrow. They are the largest private cars out there, so they have to
bear the brut of the wrath that used to be reserved for minivans, giant
station wagons, luxury sedans, etc.

Back to my point: my personal skeleton is that despite a virtuous life
where my bicycle is my primary work transportation (probably 80% of the
time, at least), and ownership of a virtously svelte New Beetle, I do a
60 km round trip by car every Saturday to get to and from the beginning
of my club ride. The proverbial driving to the gym. In the racing
season, I probably drive to a bike race every two weeks. I make a choice
to drive to a distant butcher because I like the meat better than the
meat from nearby providers. I have an air conditioned house, an air
conditioned car, and I use both liberally, and this in the Pacific
Northwest, where 30C is a pretty warm day.

And so forth. One reason a lot of large SUVs get bought is because if
you're into an activity that might involve pulling a trailer (horses,
boats, camping, our bike club's youth development squad...) and there's
more than two people in your family, SUVs are pretty much the only
vehicle left that can handle both tasks with ease. Even in my family, my
parents own a full-size 4x4 pickup, basically a Suburban with an open
back, because it does regular duty as the prime mover for a ski boat.

It's ludicrous to go to a bicycle newsgroup and vent your wrath at SUVs,
unless your anger is suffused with low self-esteem, and thus you need
affirmation for your mote-finding. In which case, huzzah! But if you
want to talk about positive changes, well, let me blow my own horn:

in the last 12 months I've given a workshop on bike commuting, helped
one co-worker buy a suitable commuter machine, and loaned my folding
bike to a friend. I am the go-to guy for all my co-workers on cycling
and commuting, I am upgrading my father's commuter bike for slightly
more comfortable riding ('cross levers), and I salvage bicycles at every
reasonable opportunity.

I daresay that kind of low-key evangelism (my preaching is mostly done
by showing up at work on a bicycle and answering questions) is more
likely to make a difference in car usage than any number of posts to
usenet, including this one.

Finally, some disclosure: despite what you might think, I think SUVs are
a vehicular mistake for most owners. I understand the motivations that
made them popular: Mickey Kaus has seriously suggested that their rise
came from the fact that rear wheel drive vehicles feel viscerally better
in some specific but subtle ways, and that for a while most passenger
vehicles were front-wheel drive (for reasons at least partly due to CAFE
legislation), which drove buyers looking for RWD into the arms of
domestic truck and SUV sellers:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081194/

But for all that, I think they're too compromised for enjoyment. I can't
see owning one myself.

That said, I also can't see owning an Acura TL, but I don't try to frame
this preference in moral terms. Now, an Audi S4 wagon, that I'm in
favour of...

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Nice post Ryan!

Zoot Katz said:

CARS SUCK! and so do _all_ the [censored] who defend that sickness that
is the status quo.

Except when YOU deem it acceptable to drive or ride in one???

I'm catching a little whiff of hypocrisy there, Zoot.

Am I wrong?

Bill

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

I know, but it's *almost* virtually impossible to not live in a way
that causes pollution. So it's not a matter of whether you do or not
- it's simply a matter of how much (which was my point).

I agree we should all do "as little damage as possible", but let's not
delude ourselves into thinking that we're not part of the problem too.

It's ludicrous to complain about someone using the internet to complain
about SUVs. Not all offenses are equal.

ISTR that someone made a famous comment on that over 2000 years ago:

"But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother,
but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?"

Well, Frank, the key here is that you may not have noticed, but there
has been considerable complaint about the motes of one's brothers here,
but very little attention to personal beams.

I'd rather not talk about the evil that are SUVs, because I am
suspicious that their recent pariah status has more to do with the
visceral impression they make than their actual contribution to human
sorrow. They are the largest private cars out there, so they have to
bear the brut of the wrath that used to be reserved for minivans, giant
station wagons, luxury sedans, etc.

Not sure that it's entirely a negative thing to ask people to evaluate
their choices where excess/status/prestige/masculinity do more to
drive their choice than does practicality/utility/need ... especially
when there's a clear connection between MPG and pollution (arguments
about global warming aside). A look at values is not always a bad
thing.

Quoted message said:

Back to my point: my personal skeleton is that despite a virtuous life
where my bicycle is my primary work transportation (probably 80% of the
time, at least), and ownership of a virtously svelte New Beetle, I do a
60 km round trip by car every Saturday to get to and from the beginning
of my club ride. The proverbial driving to the gym. In the racing
season, I probably drive to a bike race every two weeks. I make a choice
to drive to a distant butcher because I like the meat better than the
meat from nearby providers. I have an air conditioned house, an air
conditioned car, and I use both liberally, and this in the Pacific
Northwest, where 30C is a pretty warm day.

Of course, we all draw a line /somewhere/. I've lived through some
pretty hot nights the last few summers because it's really /not that/
uncomfortable. A few fewer Kw-hrs won't kill my wife and me. Fans
run cheaply. I scoff at those who live in 7,500sf homes with swimming
pools and preach about the propriety of driving a hybrid.

Quoted message said:

And so forth. One reason a lot of large SUVs get bought is because if
you're into an activity that might involve pulling a trailer (horses,
boats, camping, our bike club's youth development squad...) and there's
more than two people in your family, SUVs are pretty much the only
vehicle left that can handle both tasks with ease. Even in my family, my
parents own a full-size 4x4 pickup, basically a Suburban with an open
back, because it does regular duty as the prime mover for a ski boat.

While I agree with what you say, I also agree that it's really /not
that much/ of a sacrifice to pick hobbies without so much negative
consequence associated. Human powered activities, for example.
Mountain biking, rather than off-road motorcycling. Hiking, rather
than ATV'ing or 4-wheeling. Kayaking, rather than motorboating.
Bicycling, rather than driving.

All of these things do much to reduce destruction of things widely
considered to be the common good. They increase fitness levels,
reducing overall costs of health care.

They also influence geopolitics and can reduce the impetus (I almost
said "need"😉 for war. I look at that as a good thing.

Quoted message said:

It's ludicrous to go to a bicycle newsgroup and vent your wrath at SUVs,
unless your anger is suffused with low self-esteem, and thus you need
affirmation for your mote-finding. In which case, huzzah! But if you
want to talk about positive changes, well, let me blow my own horn:

in the last 12 months I've given a workshop on bike commuting, helped
one co-worker buy a suitable commuter machine, and loaned my folding
bike to a friend. I am the go-to guy for all my co-workers on cycling
and commuting, I am upgrading my father's commuter bike for slightly
more comfortable riding ('cross levers), and I salvage bicycles at every
reasonable opportunity.

I daresay that kind of low-key evangelism (my preaching is mostly done
by showing up at work on a bicycle and answering questions) is more
likely to make a difference in car usage than any number of posts to
usenet, including this one.

Maybe. Maybe not. Getting people to evaluate their choices and
examine their values in subtle ways may have effect, too. I can tell
you that--as one of two bicycle commuters at my last job (150
employees)--three years later, I was one of two bicycle commuters.

Leading by example recruited exactly zero people. Can't say it's,
therefore, INeffective, but it certainly didn't seem very effective.

Preaching to the choir doesn't accomplish much. Frank, reasoned,
fair-minded, and fact-based discussions with those whose views
differ--in theory--may accomplish much. Meanwhile, I'll lead by
example, and through deeds, too.

Bob said:

wafflycat said:

Article in The Times this morning.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1778863,00.html

"Ecowarriors go into battle against 4x4s - with cycle pumps"

Includes...

"DRIVERS who park gasguzzling 4x4s overnight in Paris are receiving an
unpleasant surprise in the morning: flat tyres. A gang of young activists
are deflating the tyres of what they regard as anti-social urban tanks which
clog the narrow streets of the Left Bank."

"To the amazement of furious owners, the police say that it is not a crime
because property is not damaged. "We have had complaints, but it is not
clear that any offence is being committed," said an officer at the sixth
arrondissement."

"They expel the air slowly without setting off the vehicles' alarms, fixing
open bicycle pump hoses to the tyre valves and returning later to collect
their equipment. They leave a leaflet explaining their action."

Cheers, helen s

Ecowarriors? Young activists? Horse hockey. They are most likely simply
typical kids acting out their antisocial angst. BTW, in Illinois we'd
simply call them heads (a cop term for arrestee) because here what they
are doing is a class A misdemeanor. It's a class 4 felony on a
subsequent offense. If I happened to catch them would I arrest them?
Probably not. I would however make them pump up all the tires they'd
flattened using the same bicycle pumps they'd used to flatten them
before sending them home exhausted to Mommy and Daddy. <g>

You'd be creating perps with some fairly well-developed upper arms
there, Bob. ;-)

Zoot Katz said:

Cars need to be put in proper perspective rather than the exalted
status they enjoy now. Remember when smoking was sexy? People finally
clued in that it was a deadly scam and society's perspective changed.
It's well past the time car culture be de constructed. It's a deadlier
scam than smoking.

Sure, I welcome the de-constructing of car culture. But
sneaking around letting air out of tires and other
childish histrionics aint gonna get us there. All it does
is say "Hey, I'm a sniveling weasel."

De-construct this. It's too damn late. The highways were
built, the neighborhoods were destroyed, the parking lots
built, the suburbs built as far as the eye can see. This
happened a long time ago. We're on the back side of it
now. Where were you 30 years ago when your tantrums
might have actually done some good? All of this happened
because people love the idea of one person-one car and
they demanded it. People wanted their cars and their
houses in the suburbs. The only thing that's going
to de-construct this is Hubbert's Peak and the end
of the cheap oil era. The current situation is untenable
and unsustainable on its own, contains the seeds of its
own demise, and no amount of 'protest' is going to make
a damn bit of difference compared to that.

SUVs accelerate the entropy of this system and therefore
could even be considered a good thing if you're really
into de-construction.

Quoted message said:

All the die-hard scud slaves take cars so personally their priorities
are totally warped.

CARS SUCK! and so do _all_ the [censored] who defend that sickness that
is the status quo.

I'm not defending the sickness, I'm making fun of people
who think they are somehow 'off the grid' just because
they don't own a car.

Judging by your comments on taxis, you are FAR more
dependent on cars and car culture than I am. Scud slave.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't shoot the
[censored], but I would probably attempt to beat him with
my fists, and he would deserve it.

You're one sick [censored].

Tell me something I don't know.

Robert
cars actually do more blowing than sucking

In article <[email hidden]>,

Neil Brooks said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
> I know, but it's *almost* virtually impossible to not live in a way
> that causes pollution. So it's not a matter of whether you do or not
> - it's simply a matter of how much (which was my point).
>
> I agree we should all do "as little damage as possible", but let's not
> delude ourselves into thinking that we're not part of the problem too.

It's ludicrous to complain about someone using the internet to complain
about SUVs. Not all offenses are equal.

ISTR that someone made a famous comment on that over 2000 years ago:

"But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother,
but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?"

Well, Frank, the key here is that you may not have noticed, but there
has been considerable complaint about the motes of one's brothers here,
but very little attention to personal beams.

I'd rather not talk about the evil that are SUVs, because I am
suspicious that their recent pariah status has more to do with the
visceral impression they make than their actual contribution to human
sorrow. They are the largest private cars out there, so they have to
bear the brut of the wrath that used to be reserved for minivans, giant
station wagons, luxury sedans, etc.

Not sure that it's entirely a negative thing to ask people to evaluate
their choices where excess/status/prestige/masculinity do more to
drive their choice than does practicality/utility/need ... especially
when there's a clear connection between MPG and pollution (arguments
about global warming aside). A look at values is not always a bad
thing.

Good gravy! Are you sure? Are you really really sure? I am fascinated
that you know so much about the motivations of SUV owners around you.
Have you been poking through their garbage for under-shredded data?

The argument about MPG and pollution can be summed up thus: the United
States, by global standards, has relatively cheap gas, relatively
low-MPG cars, and relatively clean air. I suppose the long-term trend in
all three fields is positive, though I leave you to argue about which
direction would be a positive one for gas prices 🙂.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Back to my point: my personal skeleton is that despite a virtuous life
where my bicycle is my primary work transportation (probably 80% of the
time, at least), and ownership of a virtously svelte New Beetle, I do a
60 km round trip by car every Saturday to get to and from the beginning
of my club ride. [...] I have an air conditioned house, an air
conditioned car, and I use both liberally, and this in the Pacific
Northwest, where 30C is a pretty warm day.

Of course, we all draw a line /somewhere/. I've lived through some
pretty hot nights the last few summers because it's really /not that/
uncomfortable. A few fewer Kw-hrs won't kill my wife and me. Fans
run cheaply. I scoff at those who live in 7,500sf homes with swimming
pools and preach about the propriety of driving a hybrid.

But of course. Because the sin most easily condemned is the one you're
not committing, eh? I also excoriate those who live in houses slightly
larger than mine! (About 800 sq.ft., I think, but with a really wasteful
back yard. The pair of 60' conifers out there hardly makes up for
things.)

And I scoff at your inability to convince office-mates to ride bicycles.
I ascribe it to an environmentally

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And so forth. One reason a lot of large SUVs get bought is because if
you're into an activity that might involve pulling a trailer (horses,
boats, camping, our bike club's youth development squad...) and there's
more than two people in your family, SUVs are pretty much the only
vehicle left that can handle both tasks with ease. Even in my family, my
parents own a full-size 4x4 pickup, basically a Suburban with an open
back, because it does regular duty as the prime mover for a ski boat.

While I agree with what you say, I also agree that it's really /not
that much/ of a sacrifice to pick hobbies without so much negative
consequence associated. Human powered activities, for example.
Mountain biking, rather than off-road motorcycling. Hiking, rather
than ATV'ing or 4-wheeling. Kayaking, rather than motorboating.
Bicycling, rather than driving.

I think once you're in the habit of picking other people's hobbies, you
might find out that it's "hiking, rather than MTBing," and "apartments,
rather than free-standing residences." The latter in each case is
demonstrably less environmentally friendly than the former, so it's just
a matter of picking poisons.

And of course, off-road motorcycling is an excellent alternative to
off-road 4x4ing, if you want to put it that way. If you're down on
recreational motor use, how are you on recreational air travel? Flying
to a vacation destination is pretty excessive in terms of fuel consumed
(not trivial, even on a commercial passenger flight: you'd be better
off, fuel-wise, driving in many cases), and can hardly be justified,
environmentally.

Your bicycles _are_ built locally, aren't they?

I jest, of course, and may not even have hit the mark with you. But give
me enough time and personal information, and I will audit your life and
recommend the things you should give up so you're as virtuous as I hope.

Quoted message said:

All of these things do much to reduce destruction of things widely
considered to be the common good. They increase fitness levels,
reducing overall costs of health care.

They also influence geopolitics and can reduce the impetus (I almost
said "need"😉 for war. I look at that as a good thing.

Most of my MTB friends drive to the trailheads.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's ludicrous to go to a bicycle newsgroup and vent your wrath at SUVs,
unless your anger is suffused with low self-esteem, and thus you need
affirmation for your mote-finding. In which case, huzzah! But if you
want to talk about positive changes, well, let me blow my own horn:

in the last 12 months I've given a workshop on bike commuting, helped
one co-worker buy a suitable commuter machine, and loaned my folding
bike to a friend. I am the go-to guy for all my co-workers on cycling
and commuting, I am upgrading my father's commuter bike for slightly
more comfortable riding ('cross levers), and I salvage bicycles at every
reasonable opportunity.

I daresay that kind of low-key evangelism (my preaching is mostly done
by showing up at work on a bicycle and answering questions) is more
likely to make a difference in car usage than any number of posts to
usenet, including this one.

Maybe. Maybe not. Getting people to evaluate their choices and
examine their values in subtle ways may have effect, too. I can tell
you that--as one of two bicycle commuters at my last job (150
employees)--three years later, I was one of two bicycle commuters.

Leading by example recruited exactly zero people. Can't say it's,
therefore, INeffective, but it certainly didn't seem very effective.

Aha! I knew I'd find something. I feel this failure of yours to convince
your co-workers, is a personal failing on your part. If I could convert
mine, I fail to see why you should do any less for your part. It's
probably due to your grating personality: have you considered therapy? I
wouldn't ordinarily recommend it over the internet, but in this case, I
can already see that your failure to modify your personality has cost
the environment too much already. And therapy, plus possibly some
medication, can do much to reduce destruction of things widely
considered to be the common good (poor interpersonal interactions, in
your case directly damaging the environment through your lack of
commuter conversions). Therapy increase mental fitness levels, reducing
overall health care costs, plus the associated environmental benefits in
your case.

Quoted message said:

Preaching to the choir doesn't accomplish much. Frank, reasoned,
fair-minded, and fact-based discussions with those whose views
differ--in theory--may accomplish much. Meanwhile, I'll lead by
example, and through deeds, too.

I'm telling you, Neil, your lack of commitment to the cause of
converting commuters to cycling has cost the environment more than I am
willing to accept already. Please consider behaviour-modification
therapy as soon as possible, or at least a short course in persuasion.
Local Toastmasters clubs are one place to start, or Dale Carnegie's
books, or Aristotle's "Rhetoric" if you have a more classical, Great
Books inclination.

* * *

What I wrote above is funnier than what I will write next, and what
follows is also less worth reading. But I think the best way to deal
with environmental, erm, degradation issues, is to put an accurate price
on them whenever possible.

This isn't a new idea: indeed, gasoline is veritably besotted with
taxation, even in the free-wheeling US of A, more so in Canada, and much
more so in Europe. Those taxes go back to the governments in question,
and, waywardly, end up paying for the next generation of environmental
improvements. The record on this working is pretty good: most developed
nations nowadays have pretty clean air, typically about as clean as the
air has been since the Industrial Revolution, although I'm not sure
pollution of any kind was much of a problem in Los Angeles 1885.

If you want a specific example, I guess this means that to the extent
you want a solution, I favour gas-guzzler taxes over CAFE standards. If
you want a broader view, I favour cost-recovery over social engineering.
Not that social engineering doesn't have its place: one of the reasons
the Netherlands has a lot of cyclists is they have a lot of cycling
infrastructure, a strong cultural commitment to cycling, a pancake-flat
country, historical mid-century impoverishment which kept people away
from cars just a bit longer at a crucial juncture, no room for
Interstates...it all adds up.

Now, if we can all get back to mote-checking, I'm going to go outside
and make tsking noises at all the people with higher BMIs than me for
using up all my public health care.

You can do that in Canada,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:20:42 GMT,
<[email hidden]>, "Bill Sornson"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CARS SUCK! and so do _all_ the [censored] who defend that sickness that
is the status quo.

Except when YOU deem it acceptable to drive or ride in one???

Three interrogation points? oh my. Turn in your punctuation cop badge,
hypocrite.

I've not driven by *choice* for a long time.

It's the whole mindset of car-culture that nauseates me. It's the
personal identification with their vehicles which is sick. Scud
jockeys regard it as an extension of their body - "I love my car, it's
my baby", "You touch my car, I break your face", etc.

When somebody thinks it's acceptable to violently assault another
person because they'd keyed a car or let air from its tires, gobbed on
the windscreen or just told 'em their scud is butt ugly and stinks,
that are symptoms of the sickness that is fostered by car culture

The popular notion that driving is a personal activity is totally
twisted when driving occurs in a public space.

Everywhere we look, cars and bad driving are deemed acceptable.
They're promoted in entertainment, advertising and language. It's
reinforced by the courts when grievous crimes are dismissed with a
wink and a nod.

That people are told to equate cars with freedom is the biggest
con-job yet. People are slaves to their scuds. They're mentally
crippled by their inability to conceive of life without their car.
They're physically hobbled by their dependency on cars.

And all the while the rest of us are forced to breathe the [censored] they
spew, dodge the mayhem they create and waste our resources to
accommodate them.

Yeah Bill, cars really do suck.
--
zk

16 Sep 2005 10:19:30 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] wrote, in part:

Quoted message said:

Where were you 30 years ago when your tantrums
might have actually done some good? All of this happened
because people love the idea of one person-one car and
they demanded it.

I was riding bicycles and motorcycles and dodging the clueless caged
[censored] same as today.

Quoted message said:

Judging by your comments on taxis, you are FAR more
dependent on cars and car culture than I am. Scud slave.

Due to having a broken leg, I've probably taken more taxi rides this
year than in the last five years combined. IOW, maybe eight.
--
zk

I submit that on or about Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:29:56 GMT, the person
known to the court as Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> made a
statement (<[email hidden]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

I'd rather not talk about the evil that are SUVs, because I am
suspicious that their recent pariah status has more to do with the
visceral impression they make than their actual contribution to human
sorrow.

Hmmm. I see them as a symptom, not a cause; but there is no doubt
that selfishness, aggression and plain old-fashioned pig-ignorance are
significantly correlated with ownership of SUVs, hereabouts anyway.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Neil Brooks said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] wrote:

> Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> >
> > I know, but it's *almost* virtually impossible to not live in a way
> > that causes pollution. So it's not a matter of whether you do or not
> > - it's simply a matter of how much (which was my point).
> >
> > I agree we should all do "as little damage as possible", but let's not
> > delude ourselves into thinking that we're not part of the problem too.
>
> It's ludicrous to complain about someone using the internet to complain
> about SUVs. Not all offenses are equal.
>
>
> ISTR that someone made a famous comment on that over 2000 years ago:
>
> "But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother,
> but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?"

Well, Frank, the key here is that you may not have noticed, but there
has been considerable complaint about the motes of one's brothers here,
but very little attention to personal beams.

I'd rather not talk about the evil that are SUVs, because I am
suspicious that their recent pariah status has more to do with the
visceral impression they make than their actual contribution to human
sorrow. They are the largest private cars out there, so they have to
bear the brut of the wrath that used to be reserved for minivans, giant
station wagons, luxury sedans, etc.

Not sure that it's entirely a negative thing to ask people to evaluate
their choices where excess/status/prestige/masculinity do more to
drive their choice than does practicality/utility/need ... especially
when there's a clear connection between MPG and pollution (arguments
about global warming aside). A look at values is not always a bad
thing.

Good gravy! Are you sure? Are you really really sure? I am fascinated
that you know so much about the motivations of SUV owners around you.
Have you been poking through their garbage for under-shredded data?

Notice (or fail to notice) that I described a particular group of
people: those for whom excess/status/prestige/masculinity do more to
drive their choice than does practicality/utility/need. That's not
everybody ... but I bet it's certainly a big bunch of 'em.

Quoted message said:

The argument about MPG and pollution can be summed up thus: the United
States, by global standards, has relatively cheap gas, relatively
low-MPG cars, and relatively clean air. I suppose the long-term trend in
all three fields is positive, though I leave you to argue about which
direction would be a positive one for gas prices 🙂.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Back to my point: my personal skeleton is that despite a virtuous life
where my bicycle is my primary work transportation (probably 80% of the
time, at least), and ownership of a virtously svelte New Beetle, I do a
60 km round trip by car every Saturday to get to and from the beginning
of my club ride. [...] I have an air conditioned house, an air
conditioned car, and I use both liberally, and this in the Pacific
Northwest, where 30C is a pretty warm day.

Of course, we all draw a line /somewhere/. I've lived through some
pretty hot nights the last few summers because it's really /not that/
uncomfortable. A few fewer Kw-hrs won't kill my wife and me. Fans
run cheaply. I scoff at those who live in 7,500sf homes with swimming
pools and preach about the propriety of driving a hybrid.

But of course. Because the sin most easily condemned is the one you're
not committing, eh? I also excoriate those who live in houses slightly
larger than mine! (About 800 sq.ft., I think, but with a really wasteful
back yard. The pair of 60' conifers out there hardly makes up for
things.)

And I scoff at your inability to convince office-mates to ride bicycles.
I ascribe it to an environmentally

You, uh, sort of trailed off there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And so forth. One reason a lot of large SUVs get bought is because if
you're into an activity that might involve pulling a trailer (horses,
boats, camping, our bike club's youth development squad...) and there's
more than two people in your family, SUVs are pretty much the only
vehicle left that can handle both tasks with ease. Even in my family, my
parents own a full-size 4x4 pickup, basically a Suburban with an open
back, because it does regular duty as the prime mover for a ski boat.

While I agree with what you say, I also agree that it's really /not
that much/ of a sacrifice to pick hobbies without so much negative
consequence associated. Human powered activities, for example.
Mountain biking, rather than off-road motorcycling. Hiking, rather
than ATV'ing or 4-wheeling. Kayaking, rather than motorboating.
Bicycling, rather than driving.

I think once you're in the habit of picking other people's hobbies, you
might find out that it's "hiking, rather than MTBing," and "apartments,
rather than free-standing residences." The latter in each case is
demonstrably less environmentally friendly than the former, so it's just
a matter of picking poisons.

It's also a matter of low-hanging fruit/diminishing returns. If
/more/ people showed, directionally, /more/ concern (say, about the
impacts of their choices and actions on others and on the environment)
and /fewer/ people showed, directionally /less/ concern, some good
might come out of it, no?

Quoted message said:

And of course, off-road motorcycling is an excellent alternative to
off-road 4x4ing, if you want to put it that way. If you're down on
recreational motor use, how are you on recreational air travel? Flying
to a vacation destination is pretty excessive in terms of fuel consumed
(not trivial, even on a commercial passenger flight: you'd be better
off, fuel-wise, driving in many cases), and can hardly be justified,
environmentally.

Your bicycles _are_ built locally, aren't they?

I jest, of course, and may not even have hit the mark with you. But give
me enough time and personal information, and I will audit your life and
recommend the things you should give up so you're as virtuous as I hope.

Back to my point ... when you're finished taking it to the extreme to
make yours: better today than yesterday. Better this year than last.
A little more aware than before. A little better about being part of
the solution and not part of the problem. That fairly well summarizes
my outlook on the thing. It's really fairly moderate, and really
fairly implementable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All of these things do much to reduce destruction of things widely
considered to be the common good. They increase fitness levels,
reducing overall costs of health care.

They also influence geopolitics and can reduce the impetus (I almost
said "need"😉 for war. I look at that as a good thing.

Most of my MTB friends drive to the trailheads.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's ludicrous to go to a bicycle newsgroup and vent your wrath at SUVs,
unless your anger is suffused with low self-esteem, and thus you need
affirmation for your mote-finding. In which case, huzzah! But if you
want to talk about positive changes, well, let me blow my own horn:

in the last 12 months I've given a workshop on bike commuting, helped
one co-worker buy a suitable commuter machine, and loaned my folding
bike to a friend. I am the go-to guy for all my co-workers on cycling
and commuting, I am upgrading my father's commuter bike for slightly
more comfortable riding ('cross levers), and I salvage bicycles at every
reasonable opportunity.

I daresay that kind of low-key evangelism (my preaching is mostly done
by showing up at work on a bicycle and answering questions) is more
likely to make a difference in car usage than any number of posts to
usenet, including this one.

Maybe. Maybe not. Getting people to evaluate their choices and
examine their values in subtle ways may have effect, too. I can tell
you that--as one of two bicycle commuters at my last job (150
employees)--three years later, I was one of two bicycle commuters.

Leading by example recruited exactly zero people. Can't say it's,
therefore, INeffective, but it certainly didn't seem very effective.

Aha! I knew I'd find something. I feel this failure of yours to convince
your co-workers, is a personal failing on your part. If I could convert
mine, I fail to see why you should do any less for your part. It's
probably due to your grating personality: have you considered therapy? I
wouldn't ordinarily recommend it over the internet, but in this case, I
can already see that your failure to modify your personality has cost
the environment too much already. And therapy, plus possibly some
medication, can do much to reduce destruction of things widely
considered to be the common good (poor interpersonal interactions, in
your case directly damaging the environment through your lack of
commuter conversions). Therapy increase mental fitness levels, reducing
overall health care costs, plus the associated environmental benefits in
your case.

Not at all sure where you were going with this, but can only imagine
that you amused yourself in the process ... and that's important ;-)

Something about the people with whom I worked, the area in which I
live, the vehicular traffic in this area, the distance of /relatively
more/ affordable housing from the office, and the values of my
co-workers conspired to keep /any/ of them from gaining interest in
bicycle commuting to work.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

What I wrote above is funnier than what I will write next, and what
follows is also less worth reading. But I think the best way to deal
with environmental, erm, degradation issues, is to put an accurate price
on them whenever possible.

Clearly a capitalistic solution, by definition: ease the burden on the
business community, or the general population, then put the onus on
the market to create the solution for profit. Maybe it'll work.
Wouldn't necessarily be my vote, though.

We do that in re: health care down here, as a populace, insisting
that--regardless of what we do to our bodies--the free marketplace
comes up with a way to expiate our sins and save us from ourselves.
To some extent they can, but at a teriffic cost, both economically,
through side effects (that require treatment with /additional/ drugs),
etc.

I favor prevention. It's cheaper, easier, and has fewer adverse
consequences. It just doesn't do as much to stimulate the
(genuflecting here) GNP.

Quoted message said:

This isn't a new idea: indeed, gasoline is veritably besotted with
taxation, even in the free-wheeling US of A, more so in Canada, and much
more so in Europe. Those taxes go back to the governments in question,
and, waywardly, end up paying for the next generation of environmental
improvements. The record on this working is pretty good: most developed
nations nowadays have pretty clean air, typically about as clean as the
air has been since the Industrial Revolution, although I'm not sure
pollution of any kind was much of a problem in Los Angeles 1885.

If you want a specific example, I guess this means that to the extent
you want a solution, I favour gas-guzzler taxes over CAFE standards. If
you want a broader view, I favour cost-recovery over social engineering.
Not that social engineering doesn't have its place: one of the reasons
the Netherlands has a lot of cyclists is they have a lot of cycling
infrastructure, a strong cultural commitment to cycling, a pancake-flat
country, historical mid-century impoverishment which kept people away
from cars just a bit longer at a crucial juncture, no room for
Interstates...it all adds up.

What you're speaking to, generally, is the political will. IOW:
absent many of those structural differences between our country and a
country like the Netherlands, there isn't a lot of self-evident
impetus to invest/socially engineer a less car-centric culture.

That's definitely a challenge ... but a surmountable one, to be sure.

Also, the US certainly doesn't shy away from social engineering
(review its tax code, or the tax-exempt status of churches). It does
these things when it seeks to promote the common good. Lots of levers
to flick; many carrots and sticks to be wielded.

Quoted message said:

Now, if we can all get back to mote-checking, I'm going to go outside
and make tsking noises at all the people with higher BMIs than me for
using up all my public health care.

You can do that in Canada,

You can do that here, too. The actuarial tables derive health-care
costs by looking at large populations' health characteristics. We
still pay for the sins of others down here. Our lines are just
shorter ;-)

Awww, come on guys! Both of you can't get the numbers?!?

SHOW ME THE NUMBERS!

Then we can go on with this little sidetrack in the conversation....

-Buck

"Nuck 'n Futz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whether it results in just minor property damage to your shiney scud
or death or injury to pedestrians and cyclists, about twenty percent
of you scud slaves prove it doesn't take backbone to be assholesl

No idea what that even means.

To interpret what he writes in RBM, you need to know that "Zoot Katz" is the
protagonist in a very imaginative if somewhat simplistic video game, where
he rides hither and yon on a bicycle, and is constantly doing battle with
his nemeses, people who drive cars. They drive as though they've been
pithed, and were it not for his sharp wits and quick reflexes, Zoot, his
pets and his friends would be flattened many times a day, and the "game"
would have been "over" long ago. He has all manner of pejorative nicknames
for people who drive cars, of which "scud slaves" and "cagers" are among the
mildest ones. Name-calling and vicarious letting down of tires is his only
defense against the evil Scud Slaves and Cagers who constantly imperil him.

"[censored]" is sort of a catch-all word for anybody who isn't Zoot Katz. So
you and I are "[censored]". Got that?

He's been playing this game a long time. He has all 100 high scores for the
game, and he is at the highest level. Nobody plays it as well as him, he's
a natural like the deaf, dumb and blind kid who sure played a mean pinball.

He has long since lost the most tenuous touch with reality.

Quoted message said:

The highways were
built, the neighborhoods were destroyed, the parking lots
built, the suburbs built as far as the eye can see. This
happened a long time ago.

That is correct. So we need to think
POST Apocalypse! Bikes WILL be the
future. When oil hits $10 a gallon OR LESS,
society will begin to crumble and bicycles will
be at a premium. And we need to be fit enough
to ride em when that day comes. Men, women,
children and old folks alike!

Personally, I am going to buy a quadracycle
and go CarFree before the [censored] comes down
so calamity will be no big deal and I will be ready.

It wouldn't hurt to learn how to grow a vegetable
garden either. FWIW.

Don Boring
Glendora, CA USA
"There is something wrong with a society that drives a car to work out in a
gym."

Bill Nye

Don Boring said:

That is correct. So we need to think
POST Apocalypse! Bikes WILL be the
future. When oil hits $10 a gallon OR LESS,
society will begin to crumble and bicycles will
be at a premium. And we need to be fit enough
to ride em when that day comes. Men, women,
children and old folks alike!

Personally, I am going to buy a quadracycle
and go CarFree before the [censored] comes down
so calamity will be no big deal and I will be ready.

It wouldn't hurt to learn how to grow a vegetable
garden either. FWIW.

Don Boring
Glendora, CA USA

It seems that Idaho would be a better place to be a survivalist.

Will the energy apocolypse come before or after the nuclear apocolypse?